House Republicans won't rule out arresting Lois Lerner if Justice Department doesn't

[Sallow]

House Republicans aren't going to do shit.

no. but brainwashed hacks get all revved up and happy when they're tossed red meat....

the law says NO POLITICING BY 501(c)(4) corporations.

i'm not quite sure why that confuses them.

Now if they were only "illegal" immigrants.

Then the law would matter!

 

[Sallow]

Again she could avoid all this.

Avoid what?

Losing her job?

Done.

Derp we all know she lost her job stop diverting. She could avoid legal problems. If it were me I would not be in the same position.

She's got no "legal" problems.

Ask Karl about his "legal" problems.

 

[Sallow]

If Issa wants her to answer his "questions"?

Let him grant her complete immunity.

He won't do that.

Why?

Because after pouring through 10s of thousands of documents..he hasn't found shit.

 

[Politico]

Avoid what?

Losing her job?

Done.

Derp we all know she lost her job stop diverting. She could avoid legal problems. If it were me I would not be in the same position.

She's got no "legal" problems.

Ask Karl about his "legal" problems.

Yes she may. All she had to do is say what she knows.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's not a chance in hell Holder will do a damn thing. In fact he would present her with the Medal of Honor if he could.

Actually, Congress should arrest both of them; one for not testifying after giving 17 distinct responses, and the other for not prosecuting.

 

[JoeB131]

Given the track record there is no way this Justice Department will help in one of the worst cases of government abuse of power we've ever had. Watergate was nothing compared to this and there is a virtual media blackout with the exception of FOX.

If this had gone the other way and liberal groups had been targeted we would have a very different atmosphere. Hypocrisy has never been more obvious.

I think a war fought over weapons that didn't exist so that the Vice President's former company could rake in billions in revenues is a much more serious abuse of power than whether or not a Teabagging group got a fraudulent tax exemption.

Provide evidence that anything you just said is true. 3 separate investigations by the Congress found no one lied. To believe that lies were told means you believe that Clinton and his administration lied to start the ball rolling, that the UN lied, that Germany, Great Briton, France, Russia, China, Belgium all lied. That every single intelligence agency in this Country lied as well.

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush said there were.

Bush lied. Soldiers Died.

This really isn't ******* complicated.

 

[JoeB131]

There's not a chance in hell Holder will do a damn thing. In fact he would present her with the Medal of Honor if he could.

Actually, Congress should arrest both of them; one for not testifying after giving 17 distinct responses, and the other for not prosecuting.

Congress has no arrest authority. and frankly, we are all better off for it.

If Congress wants Lerner's testimony that bad, give her immunity.

They don't want testimony, they want a show on Faux News so mouth-breathers like you can eat it up and not demand why they haven't done jack shit about unemployment or any of the real problems.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's not a chance in hell Holder will do a damn thing. In fact he would present her with the Medal of Honor if he could.

Actually, Congress should arrest both of them; one for not testifying after giving 17 distinct responses, and the other for not prosecuting.

Congress has no arrest authority. and frankly, we are all better off for it.

If Congress wants Lerner's testimony that bad, give her immunity.

They don't want testimony, they want a show on Faux News so mouth-breathers like you can eat it up and not demand why they haven't done jack shit about unemployment or any of the real problems.

Congress has no arrest authority. and frankly, we are all better off for it.

Weren't you reading the article? Or did you simply dismiss it because of the author? Intellectually lazy as you always are, Joe. Democrats pushed for this power to be used against President Bush, by the way.

The Supreme Court upheld Congress' right to inherent contempt in two instances, first in Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821) and in Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). MacKracken was imprisoned for 10 days for destroying evidence crucial to the Congressional investigation, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court and was denied. Just because they (the Congress) haven't arrested someone in almost 80 years doesn't mean they can't still do so.

2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Weren't you reading the article? Or did you simply dismiss it because of the author. Intellectually lazy as you always are, Joe. Democrats pushed for this power to be used against President Bush, by the way.

The Supreme Court upheld Congress' right to inherent contempt in two instances, first in Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821) and in Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). MacKracken was imprisoned for 10 days for destroying evidence crucial to the Congressional investigation, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court and was denied. Just because they (the Congress) haven't arrested someone in almost 80 years doesn't mean they can't still do so.

Congress hasn't arrested anyone in 80 years because no one would stand for it if they did.

What you guys are advocating is arresting a woman for excercising her constitutional right to not testify.

I can't imagine anything more un-American.

And, yeah, I do usually ignore links from Wingnuts... because they usually have no credibiity and shoddy scholarship.

 

[S.J.]

[

Weren't you reading the article? Or did you simply dismiss it because of the author. Intellectually lazy as you always are, Joe. Democrats pushed for this power to be used against President Bush, by the way.

The Supreme Court upheld Congress' right to inherent contempt in two instances, first in Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821) and in Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). MacKracken was imprisoned for 10 days for destroying evidence crucial to the Congressional investigation, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court and was denied. Just because they (the Congress) haven't arrested someone in almost 80 years doesn't mean they can't still do so.

Congress hasn't arrested anyone in 80 years because no one would stand for it if they did.

What you guys are advocating is arresting a woman for excercising her constitutional right to not testify.

I can't imagine anything more un-American.

And, yeah, I do usually ignore links from Wingnuts... because they usually have no credibiity and shoddy scholarship.

She gave up her 5th amendment right when she made a statement in court. You don't know the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Weren't you reading the article? Or did you simply dismiss it because of the author? Intellectually lazy as you always are, Joe. Democrats pushed for this power to be used against President Bush, by the way.

The Supreme Court upheld Congress' right to inherent contempt in two instances, first in Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821) and in Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). MacKracken was imprisoned for 10 days for destroying evidence crucial to the Congressional investigation, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court and was denied. Just because they (the Congress) haven't arrested someone in almost 80 years doesn't mean they can't still do so.

Congress hasn't arrested anyone in 80 years because no one would stand for it if they did.

What you guys are advocating is arresting a woman for exercising her constitutional right to not testify.

I can't imagine anything more un-American.

And, yeah, I do usually ignore links from Wingnuts... because they usually have no credibiity and shoddy scholarship.

Lerner testified that she "broke no laws" and she repeated a variant of this statement 17 times in her first testimony before congress, before pleading the 5th. By doing so she forfeited that right and is therefore impeding a congressional investigation. That Joe, is unlawful and she should and might as well be held until she testifies. You didn't mind when Democrats tried this with Bush, now did you?

Your argument is baseless on it's face. Moreover, evidence was found that she willfully targeted Conservative groups. Then the next domino fell, Elijah Cummings, he could go to jail for 5 years for what he's done. More and more Democrats are coming out of the woodwork in this scandal. Congress will break her.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Weren't you reading the article? Or did you simply dismiss it because of the author. Intellectually lazy as you always are, Joe. Democrats pushed for this power to be used against President Bush, by the way.

The Supreme Court upheld Congress' right to inherent contempt in two instances, first in Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821) and in Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). MacKracken was imprisoned for 10 days for destroying evidence crucial to the Congressional investigation, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court and was denied. Just because they (the Congress) haven't arrested someone in almost 80 years doesn't mean they can't still do so.

Congress hasn't arrested anyone in 80 years because no one would stand for it if they did.

What you guys are advocating is arresting a woman for excercising her constitutional right to not testify.

I can't imagine anything more un-American.

And, yeah, I do usually ignore links from Wingnuts... because they usually have no credibiity and shoddy scholarship.

She gave up her 5th amendment right when she made a statement in court. You don't know the law.

No, she really didn't.

I know you want to think that the constitution doesn't count for some reason, but the fact is, she is using the fifth Amendment exactly the way it was intended- as a protection from overzealous prosecutions.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Lerner testified that she "broke no laws" and she repeated a variant of this statement 17 times in her first testimony before congress, before pleading the 5th. By doing so she forfeited that right and is therefore impeding a congressional investigation. That Joe, is unlawful and she should and might as well be held until she testifies. You didn't mind when Democrats tried this with Bush, now did you?

Your argument is baseless on it's face. Moreover, evidence was found that she willfully targeted Conservative groups. Then the next domino fell, Elijah Cummings, he could go to jail for 5 years for what he's done. More and more Democrats are coming out of the woodwork in this scandal. Congress will break her.

Again, guy, back in the mid-oughts, I was as right wing as you are. Then I figured out the rich could care less if folks like you and me live or die. If you got off the couch and got a real job some time, you'd realize this.

Nobody went to jail when the Democrats tried this with Bush.

But, hey, fucknut, here's the thing. With Bush- PEOPLE ******* DIED!!!!!!

5000 soldiers and maybe up to a million Iraqis. Someone SHOULD have gone to jail for that shit.

Granny Teabag not getting her fraudelent Tax Exemption. Meh, not seeing that as a big deal.

 

[S.J.]

Congress hasn't arrested anyone in 80 years because no one would stand for it if they did.

What you guys are advocating is arresting a woman for excercising her constitutional right to not testify.

I can't imagine anything more un-American.

And, yeah, I do usually ignore links from Wingnuts... because they usually have no credibiity and shoddy scholarship.

She gave up her 5th amendment right when she made a statement in court. You don't know the law.

No, she really didn't.

I know you want to think that the constitution doesn't count for some reason, but the fact is, she is using the fifth Amendment exactly the way it was intended- as a protection from overzealous prosecutions.

Learn the law, moron.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Congress hasn't arrested anyone in 80 years because no one would stand for it if they did.

What you guys are advocating is arresting a woman for excercising her constitutional right to not testify.

I can't imagine anything more un-American.

And, yeah, I do usually ignore links from Wingnuts... because they usually have no credibiity and shoddy scholarship.

She gave up her 5th amendment right when she made a statement in court. You don't know the law.

No, she really didn't.

I know you want to think that the constitution doesn't count for some reason, but the fact is, she is using the fifth Amendment exactly the way it was intended- as a protection from overzealous prosecutions.

Oh and just because you say so makes it so. "Nuh uh times infinity!"

I cited two Supreme Court cases and Federal law to you, yet you continue to ignore it. The Constitution doesn't apply when you impede the Constitutional rights of a branch of government.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Lerner testified that she "broke no laws" and she repeated a variant of this statement 17 times in her first testimony before congress, before pleading the 5th. By doing so she forfeited that right and is therefore impeding a congressional investigation. That Joe, is unlawful and she should and might as well be held until she testifies. You didn't mind when Democrats tried this with Bush, now did you?

Your argument is baseless on it's face. Moreover, evidence was found that she willfully targeted Conservative groups. Then the next domino fell, Elijah Cummings, he could go to jail for 5 years for what he's done. More and more Democrats are coming out of the woodwork in this scandal. Congress will break her.

Again, guy, back in the mid-oughts, I was as right wing as you are. Then I figured out the rich could care less if folks like you and me live or die. If you got off the couch and got a real job some time, you'd realize this.

Nobody went to jail when the Democrats tried this with Bush.

But, hey, fucknut, here's the thing. With Bush- PEOPLE ******* DIED!!!!!!

5000 soldiers and maybe up to a million Iraqis. Someone SHOULD have gone to jail for that shit.

Granny Teabag not getting her fraudelent Tax Exemption. Meh, not seeing that as a big deal.

So? Perhaps you should lay off the caffeine so early in the morning buddy. We aren't discussing Bush here. Bush is irrelevant.

If I'm a fucknut, you're a bigger fucknut. Fucknut.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Lerner testified that she "broke no laws" and she repeated a variant of this statement 17 times in her first testimony before congress, before pleading the 5th. By doing so she forfeited that right and is therefore impeding a congressional investigation. That Joe, is unlawful and she should and might as well be held until she testifies. You didn't mind when Democrats tried this with Bush, now did you?

Your argument is baseless on it's face. Moreover, evidence was found that she willfully targeted Conservative groups. Then the next domino fell, Elijah Cummings, he could go to jail for 5 years for what he's done. More and more Democrats are coming out of the woodwork in this scandal. Congress will break her.

Again, guy, back in the mid-oughts, I was as right wing as you are. Then I figured out the rich could care less if folks like you and me live or die. If you got off the couch and got a real job some time, you'd realize this.

Nobody went to jail when the Democrats tried this with Bush.

But, hey, fucknut, here's the thing. With Bush- PEOPLE ******* DIED!!!!!!

5000 soldiers and maybe up to a million Iraqis. Someone SHOULD have gone to jail for that shit.

Granny Teabag not getting her fraudelent Tax Exemption. Meh, not seeing that as a big deal.

So? Perhaps you should lay off the caffeine so early in the morning buddy. We aren't discussing Bush here. Bush is irrelevant.

If I'm a fucknut, you're a bigger fucknut. Fucknut.

If Bush is irrelevent, why did YOU bring him up? Since you don't pay attention to what you write, I'll emphasize it for you..

So frankly, if people in Bush's White HOuse didn't go to prison for lying about intelligence that took us into a war, then Lerner shouldn't go to jail for not giving Granny Teabag her license to Launder Koch money.

 

[JoeB131]

She gave up her 5th amendment right when she made a statement in court. You don't know the law.

No, she really didn't.

I know you want to think that the constitution doesn't count for some reason, but the fact is, she is using the fifth Amendment exactly the way it was intended- as a protection from overzealous prosecutions.

Oh and just because you say so makes it so. "Nuh uh times infinity!"

I cited two Supreme Court cases and Federal law to you, yet you continue to ignore it. The Constitution doesn't apply when you impede the Constitutional rights of a branch of government.

You can cite whatever the **** you want.

No court is going to throw Lerner in prison because Darryl Issa is playing to the MOuth Breathers who watch Faux News.

 

[Sallow]

Derp we all know she lost her job stop diverting. She could avoid legal problems. If it were me I would not be in the same position.

She's got no "legal" problems.

Ask Karl about his "legal" problems.

Yes she may. All she had to do is say what she knows.

She's under no compulsion to say shit.

I don't understand why she even shows up.

And like I posted..if Issa really thought she was hiding something? He could grant her immunity.

He won't.

They just held her in contempt. That's probably the worst they could do.

If they try and take this to a real court? They will be laughed out of it.

Like this =>

 

[Sallow]

She gave up her 5th amendment right when she made a statement in court. You don't know the law.

No, she really didn't.

I know you want to think that the constitution doesn't count for some reason, but the fact is, she is using the fifth Amendment exactly the way it was intended- as a protection from overzealous prosecutions.

Oh and just because you say so makes it so. "Nuh uh times infinity!"

I cited two Supreme Court cases and Federal law to you, yet you continue to ignore it. The Constitution doesn't apply when you impede the Constitutional rights of a branch of government.

Are you ******* serious?????

What do you think the CORE of the Constitution is all about???

Seriously..you folks keep talking about big government and the rights of people.

When OBAMA was talking about NEGATIVE LIBERTIES and you folks had a stroke?

THIS..is what he was referring too.

The "Rights" of the government DO NOT trump the rights of the individual.

THAT is what makes our CONSTITUTION so outstanding.